Talk:Hollow Earth
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hollow Earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
|
Expedition
I have no affiliation with the PSF and I was the original contributor of the expedition information. 72.150.123.48 claims that the website contains inaccurate scientific data, but after looking at the PSF website, I found no such claims. Although the website is a bit amateur-ish for a scientific organization, I guess we will find out the truth by July 2007 when this expedition is supposed to take place. I would like to put this section to a vote, but I'm not sure how. Templeofthedog7 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
hollow moon
I wonder if some of the more experienced debunkers might help out with Hollow moon. The theory existed in a highly PoV fashion for several weeks on wp. I had never heard of the "theory" but I looked it up a little, and there's still quite a bit of misinformation out there (mostly on hollow earth pages). For that reason I oppose a delete. Anyone want to step up with some debunking goodness? Charles (Kznf) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did stumble across this and blogged it up [1] and while I don't consider it very likely all I can offer is more details to support the contention. Of course, even the weirdest things need to have balanced coverage I suppose. (Emperor 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
There was this joke explaining how Space: 1999 was able to explode an Eagle spacecraft at least once every episode. The moon was hollow and filled with these Eagles.
Not NPOV
I don't think that this article is NPOV. It's a huge article explaining various fringe theories and then two paragraphs (poorly) refuting it and a sentence in the introduction saying it's false. The large majority of the article is also unsourced. Perhaps a section could be added on views against Hollow Earth. — Pious7 21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? It's clear from the start of the article that the idea is bunk
- ("the hypothesis of a Hollow Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as pseudoscience") The article discusses what proponents thought and/or argued, it doesn't *support* those ideas. I'm removing the tag. - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- that sentence is missing in current version. I added it back in. Lot49a (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should it be NPOV? It's obviously a load of rubbish. Should I make a page about the flying spaghetti monster and demand it be NPOV? This is an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias are supposed to be educational. How is giving an absolute load of gobbledy-gook such as the hollow-Earth 'theory' a NPOV educational? You people who want balance for balance's sake are absolute idiots.
Note for Michaelbusch
You might want to be more careful in your deletions, and your characterizations of the material deleted. You recently reverted an edit of mine as "misleading and nonsensical." I saw nothing to warrant such a characterization, and so restored it. I notice you have made another deletion with the same characterization, this time of one sentence in the entry preceding my addition to the list. I had edited that entry at the same time I added mine to move the title of the item to a more sensible place; the statement objected to was pre-existing, and having no knowledge one way or another of whether its characterization of some people's belief was accurate I let it stand. Since your problem appears to have been with that sentence, you ought to have limited your original deletion (and characterization) to that sentence alone, and left the valid material alone. Just a little friendly advice.BPK 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Notable?
I removed these two paragraphs as they appear to be about an idea of limited notability:
- In 2001 the Australian father-and-son team Kevin and Matthew Taylor self-published the book The Land of No Horizon (direct link National Library of Australia ISBN 0-646-41057-1). Among other things it proposes an expanding and hollow Earth (as well as other planetary bodies) which eventually reached equilibrium. The book also looks at a range of topics including but not limited to evolution, human physiology, impact craters and other geology in light of such a hollow Earth.
- Kevin and Matthew Taylor's view of a hollow planet envisages a hollow globe with a small (depending on planet size) central sun ignited by radiation from the inner surface. They use this view both to explain Earth's magnetic field (replacing the dynamo theory) and the origin and ignition of stars.
I refer to WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. for why this text doesn't belong in the article.
24.199.99.169 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concur. Thanks for catching it. Michaelbusch 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning disclaimers(?)
Regarding Obruchev's Plutonia (and probably other "hollow Earth" books by other authors) - it might be worth noting in the article that the book's author himself did not believe the Earth to be hollow. Obruchev explained in preface that the Earth is hollow in the book only because he wanted to write an educational story about dinosaurs, and there already wasn't much unexplored territory left on Earth for such story to take place. He did, however, recieve considerable amount of correspondence that indicated how few people actually read prefaces.
fiction and culture
I like "references in culture" sections in articles, but this one has gotten way out of hand and should, I think, be removed. It has become an enormous list, which is one of the things that wikipedia is not. I guess the hollow-earth concept is too widespread to be listed out. Instead I think we need a paragraph or two that talks about the fact that it's a commonly used plot device, and that's all.
I thought I'd mention this here first, before making such a drastic change. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve culling the example farm, but a few specific examples should be kept. In particular, Edgar Rice Burroughs' books. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- What should we use to separate the wheat from the chaff, then? Once you let in Edgar Rice Burroughs, why not the scads of other scifi/fantasy authors listed? If we keep any list, we need a good argument to prevent it from growing back to this size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would apply common sense and WP:N. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which translates into "constantly removing rubbish for the rest of eternity", alas. That's one of the advantages of completely removing a list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I took out all the comic/cartoon/videogame references. Let's see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's creeping back up, two months later - 21 books and 7 "other" references. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I took out all the comic/cartoon/videogame references. Let's see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which translates into "constantly removing rubbish for the rest of eternity", alas. That's one of the advantages of completely removing a list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
North pole expedition
Some clown named Agnew Brooks is perpetuating the theory and organizing a new North Pole expedition to go inside the earth again. The radio talks and some videos are up on youtube as well. There ought to be a section on it. Its been in a few newspapers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Brooks Agnew, actually. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
a.k.a The Inner Earth Expedition Part One. This is absolute non sense... :-( --Pascal Boulerie (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
admiral byrd's flight
Why is there no information on Admiral Byrd? I've read a great deal about his flight logs and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir tetra (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Byrd's "lost diary" has been proven to be a myth, but it gets discussed ad nauseum. I think there should be some kind of text mentioning it in this article, and that it's purely a myth. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Introduction and reference to 15 miles of drilling
"thus direct knowledge of the Earth's structure extends only that far."
That's a misrepresentation of what's meant by "direct knowledge." Information gained from sources other than visual still counts as "direct." I'm changing the wording to "visual," since that's as strong/truthful a description as could be in the context of the article. Ryanluck (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ufology
Why does the article have a ufology-box at the bottom? I can't see the connection with hollow earth! --83.72.7.63 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Some branches of UFOlogy maintain that UFOs originate in the hollow of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.118 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Books by Adam Seaborn "Symzonia" and Professor Symmes "Symmes theory...."
At one time I owned a store called Cachivaches y otros adefecios ilimitada, a used goods and antique shop in Lima Peru and the two books were sold to me and by me. The Seaborn book was dated 1829 and the Symmes theory of concentric circles proving that the earth is hollow and habitable within was 1832 ie three years after the novel which has stuck in my memory as also the Z in Symzonia. If I remember rightly I mentioned them in a letter to Martin Gardner. Are other copies of the books extant? Prof Symmes has a dedication to the Emperor Napoleon the third by Symmes widow on the fly .92.234.53.41 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Myths and hints
The oldest claims of the hollow earth are Tibetian myths. Those myths report of 3 openings into the earth: 2 near the poles and 1 in the Himalaya. The Thule society, which was closely known by Adolf Hitler, reported much about those myths. There is even the theory that Hitler ordered a research journey for such an opening in the Antarctica. This theory is based on a speech of admiral Dönitz in front of the German submarine in 1944. During that speech, Dönitz claims, “The German submarine fleet is proud of having built an invinsible fortification for the Führer, anywhere in the world.” During the Nuremberg Trials, Dönitz spoke of “an invinsible fortification, inmidst of the eternal ice.” These are the only serious hints of the theory of the hollow earth.
I request you to discuss this part of the article, which was deleted. I think this is in no way "spiritual" or "esoteric", but rather serious, since I also gave serious sources. What's your opinion? Should this be a part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.196 (talk) 11:34, 2008 April 20 (UTC)
- This has apparently been removed and readded before, but I removed this on the basis that 1) It was nonsense 2) It had no sources 3) Donitz never said any of that. If you can find some sources please forgive me and add it in again. :)--Andrews Palop (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a serious and reliable source: http://www.hi-story.de/themen/schwab/schwab.htm There is also an English version; a historian writes a serious essay about the myth of the Nazis in Antarctica. There are also the few sentences, my text is about. Please, read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.200 (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how serious the hi-story page is, but it has since vanished (took a look with archive.org). If the quote is genuine, I would really like to have it confirmed. The given date varies, sometimes it's 1943 and sometimes 1944. Also, what is not mentioned here is the name he (allegedly) gives the secret base: "Die deutsche U-Boot Flotte ist stolz darauf, dass sie für den Führer in einem anderen Teil der Welt ein Shangri-La gebaut hat, eine uneinnehmbare Festung." A Shangri-La in another part of the world, what would that be supposed to mean? I can think of plenty of explanations other than one in Antarctica and/or inside a hollow Earth, including the simple fact that the U-Boots themselves are (comparably) unreachable, and that the "Teil der Welt" in question would simply be the deep sea. Hexmaster (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Literature
I believe H. P. Lovecraft also wrote a hollow earth story called The Mound, and several others written by him have similar themes. I don't know if you really want the literature section to be any longer, but seeing how there's a reference to a Scrooge McDuck comic in there... 75.209.146.71 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
External links
Moving these from the article because of the DavidWBrooks cleanup tag ban. Huge number of external links on the article, most of which appear to either be of questionable value or related specifically to David Koresh. These should be sorted through and only the most relevant re-added, per WP:EL.
- Hollow Earth entry in Skeptic Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll.
- Umberto Eco (July 21, 2006). "Outlandish theories: Kings of the (hollow) world". The International Herald Tribune. Review of Paul Collins' book Banvard's Folly, which includes a chapter on Symmes.
- Thomas Pynchon's Mason & Dixon (novel) where hollow Earth is a prominent theme.
- Griffin, Duane A.; Hollow and Habitable Within: Symmes's Theory of Earth's Internal Structure and Polar Geography - a scholarly article on Symmes's theory
- At the Earth's Core, by Edgar Rice Burroughs
- The Cellular Cosmogony, by Koresh: full text of Cyrus Teed's book about the inside-out Earth at www.sacred-texts.com
- The Phantom of the Poles, by William Reed: full text at www.sacred-texts.com
- All Planets Hollow, site explains that all planets are hollow in structure.
- Hollow Earths: page illustrating several hollow-Earth proposals with diagrams
- Stephen Wagner, Nazis and the Hollow Earth, Paranormal. About.com (11 January 1999): (thinly sourced) discussion of rumors about the Nazis and hollow Earth ideas.
- Koreshan State Historic Site, official web page.
- Unofficial Koreshan State Historic Site, unofficial web page.
- American Communal Utopias and The Koreshan Unity: A Bibliography Brief overview and great bibliography of works, if slightly dated.
- Turning the Universe Inside-Out: Ulysses Grant Morrow's Naples Experiment Examination of the Naples Experiment, and why it failed, but also covers the major hollow Earth theories and Koreshan beliefs.
- The Smoky God, by Willis George Emerson. Complete novel
- Voyage to our Hollow Earth, Journey to the North Pole and Beyond - 24 day Trip, June 26 2006 - July 19 2006. Cancelled expedition aboard the nuclear-powered Russian icebreaker Yamal
- The Hollow Earth - from The UnMuseum
- Hollow Earth Insider, "a dedicated worldwide group of Insiders researching, not only the Hollow Earth/Subterranean Mysteries, but also reports on the UFO/Alien connection and other mysteries, the New World Order and other conspiracies"
- The Expanding Hollow Earth Theory - a book by proponents of a hollow-Earth theory.
- List of Some Hollow Earth books in Print at amazon.com
- Phoenix Science Foundation, organization supporting an expedition
- Exile Game Studio, makers of Hollow Earth Expedition.
First of many. Too much listitis here. Oh for a {{prose}} or {{cleanup-laundry}} tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nah - much better to actually discuss and edit, rather than just add ugly tags. With that in mind, I've returned three links that I think are relevant, legitimate and interesting. Let the editing begin!- DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"The hypothesis of a Hollow Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence"
It is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" which contradicts the hollow earth theory. However there is no evidence cited within the article and there are no links to such evidence. This statement should be removed unless substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaurDon (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)DinosaurDon (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008
- Don't remove it, since it's a statement of obvious fact that casual readers need. But you're right: We need, a good short discussion about why the hypothesis runs afoul of modern geological knowledge. Help needed from knowledgeable editors! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Overwhelming evidence"? All knowledge of what's below the deepest drilling hole (~20 miles, I believe) is based exclusively on seismology measurements and volcanic eruptions. I wouldn't discount this theory just yet. Hmaier (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, the theory also says that the entire universe is contained within what we think of as the surface of the earth. This is completely at odds with ALL astrophysics, geometric understanding, gravity, and so many other things the list would take days to write. The only way this theory is "correct" is if all scientific understanding is incorrect and the universe functions in metaphysical terms instead of physical terms. Such abandonment of rationality is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia devoted to collecting objective information and presenting it in an organized and intellectual manner. While this belief is certainly influencial in human history and worth of philosophical consideration, it would hardly be appropriate to depict it as any thing other than a disproved notion of a less informed time, like the flat earth theory.98.28.114.217 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Newtonian gravity and a hollow Earth
This section explains how inhabitants on the inside would be pulled outwards by the centrifugal force, but does it really work like that? If there is no gravity to pull the inhabitants towards the surface, how would they be affected by the rotation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.171.135 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Friction. If you were to bump into the inner surface, friction would start you rotating with the Earth, and then the centrifugal force would push you outwards to bump the surface again, and then friction would pull you some more; this process would continue until you were resting against the inner surface, moving at the same velocity and being pressed very weakly against it. If there were atmosphere inside the shell, friction would also cause the air to rotate with the Earth, precluding you from simply floating motionless without touching the surface. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
visual knowledge
What is the case for including this? It seems totally irrelevant to me; we know the Earth isn't hollow.71.240.67.58 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's a piece of information that answers a question many readers will have. It doesn't interfere with the article, or make it lop-sided - there's information elsewhere about non-visual methods of determining the non-hollowness of the planet. It also doesn't say that visual information is the only information possible. I think it's fine; maybe it could be moved lower down in the story. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved it way down. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Way too many fiction references
We now have 27 books/stories in the Literature section, which is ridiculous. The point of such sections is to demonstrate that the article topic has a certain presence in popular culture, not to list every such reference in a pointless bludgeon-the-reader attack. This issue was discussed a while ago (it's in the Talk page Archive), with the agreement that we had too many but nobody (including me) ready to pare them down. It has only grown since. So ... what the heck ... i'm going to remove them all and replace them with a summary paragraph, and see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Argh - I just can't remove those interesting 18th- and 19th-century examples! We need to think of a way to keep those but cut all the recent dross. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
removed fiction items
The "Hollow Earths in fiction" list is still enormous. I just removed a few items, trying to keep them only to fiction about the Earth itself being hollow, not other planets or fake planets - like Dyson spheres (the Halo book), or hollow Moon (Neznaika on the Moon (Незнайка на Луне)), or Matter (2008) by Iain M Banks describes a "shell world" ... the iffiest cut was James De Mille's novel A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder (1888) is a Victorian satire, because he thinks he's in a hollow Earth but really isn't. I also removed an "independent sci/fi" film because there are a bazillion independent films out there, maybe that was excessive on my part. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- All of this makes sense. If no one can bear to cut things, is it worth splitting off the list? Hollow Earth is a very popular and common theme. Lot 49atalk 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea. If we do it, it should cover all hollow-planet stories and movies, not just hollow Earth. Hollow planets in fiction would cover Dyson spheres, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps better would be Hollow worlds in fiction? "Planet" is too restrictive, it seems to me, excluding moons, etc. And too general, as I think the interest is in inhabited (if only by animals) places, I guess? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like Hollow Worlds in Fiction myself. It has a nice ring to it. Lot 49atalk 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Worlds" is much better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there is an article Subterranean fiction. Perhaps the proper thing would be to expand upon that article? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect! We can do some cut and paste from here to there, then reduce the section here to a few sentences and a "main article" link to Subterranean fiction, and voila. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there is an article Subterranean fiction. Perhaps the proper thing would be to expand upon that article? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Worlds" is much better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like Hollow Worlds in Fiction myself. It has a nice ring to it. Lot 49atalk 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Seven months later, I did just that, since nobody seemed to care much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! I was just coming back here because I remembered about this. Nice work. Lot 49atalk 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
part about gravity
The part about gravity is entirely incorrect. It's been mathematically proven and well known that gravity on the inside of a sphere would allow you to walk on the outside shell, much like the picture shown. Also, there is no such thing a "centrifugal force." It should not even be mention as it makes no sense. Mbaboy (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the section is probably incorrect, but not quite as you say. Walking on the outermost shell would be the same as walking on a solid sphere of a proportional density. Inside the shell, its gravitational effects would be cancelled, but one would be able to walk on any inner shells in exactly the same manner. Centrifugal force does exist, it just depends on your frame of reference. 218.143.30.1 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The proof that a the gravitational force inside of a hollow shell is zero (from the shell, although other bodies may exert a force) has been well-established since Newton. Your claims are bogus.
As for the centrifugal force, it's a totally standard and useful way to represent motion in a non-inertial reference frame (like a rotating sphere).
— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Reversion of edits arguing about physics
I have reverted this[2]. There are many things wrong with it:
- Its tone is argumentative, which is wrong for Wikipedia
- It is sourced to largely to a web site that is not a wp:reliable reference
- The website it is sourced to doesn't even support it
- The physics is incorrect. For example, the center of mass of a hollow uniform spherical shell is at the center of the sphere.
- And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not a hosting service for wp:Original Research.
Cardamon (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Gravity section
Hi guys,
I've just tried to tighten up the section about the forces experienced by an observer standing on the interior of the shell. I have also moved the last bit, about the observed mass of the Earth, closer to the first bit (about stability reasons for the infeasibility of a hollow Earth) as they seem closer together in spirit than the bit about the forces does to them both. PatBuckles (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think the older version was clearer (it was also shorter, so I'm not sure what you mean by "tighten up"). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven. I'm sorry to see that you deleted my section. This is what I meant:
-The original version states that 'Someone one the inside would not experience an outward pull' and then contradicts itself a couple of lines later by stating that there would actually be an outward pull due to the the ellipticity of the Earth's surface and the influence of other astrophysical bodies.
-The original version contradicts itself again by saying that one would be 'nearly' weightless and then goes off onto a tangent about the shell-theorem. Only after talking about the shell theorem does it mention why it is 'nearly' weightless and not totally weightless.
The relation between the shape of the shell, the gravity, and the influence of other bodies is not coherently laid out as is.
-It is not true that one instantaneously co-moving with the Earth's rotation at the shell would feel always feel a centrifugal force, hence my comment about the necessity of the person not lying on either of the two points of the shell that meet the Earth's axis of rotation. If one is one the axis of rotation then the is no force. One simply would stay where one was (assuming there is no mass interior to the shell. PatBuckles (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven,
Also if you need a bit of help with the physics, this is a good book in my view: `An Introduction To Mechanics' by Kleppner and Kolenkow (McGraw-Hill Inc.,US.). It covers things like Newton's theory of gravity and centrifugal and centripetal forces. PatBuckles (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the first sentence, the addition of the word "significant" fixes the problem with "would not experience an outward pull". "nearly weightless" is correct. I don't see how the shell theorem is a tangent: it is the reason why a person would be nearly weightless. Your comment about a lack of coherence is not clear. One still feels a centrifugal force if one is on the axis of rotation assuming that you don't have zero size (though yes, on the axis there is no net force on a symmetrical person), although of course the maximum force is at the equator as stated. Anyway, this seems like a pointless quibble: the whole point is that the centrifugal force is tiny, even at the equator. I'm not sure why you think I need "help with the physics"; I'm quite familiar with K&K (I have a PhD in physics). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like everybody forgot within the fiction section about Jules Verne book "trip to the center of the earth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.14.2 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- B-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- B-Class physics history articles
- Physics history articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Unknown-importance Mythology articles
- B-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles